Evolutionary stability of the lysis‐lysogeny decision: why be virulent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lytic viruses infect and kill host cells, producing a large number of viral copies. Temperate viruses, in contrast, are able to integrate viral genetic material into the host cell DNA, leaving a viable host cell. The evolutionary advantage of this strategy, lysogeny, has been demonstrated in complex environments that include spatial structure, oscillating population dynamics, or periodic environmental collapse. Here, we examine the evolutionary stability of the lysis-lysogeny decision, that is, we predict the long-term outcome of the evolution of lysogeny rates. We demonstrate that viruses with high rates of lysogeny are stable against invasion by more virulent viral strains even in simple environments, as long as the pool of susceptible hosts is not unlimited. This mirrors well-known results in both r-K selection theory and virulence evolution: although virulent viruses have a faster potential growth rate, temperate strains are able to maintain positive growth on a lower density of the limiting resource, susceptible hosts. We then outline scenarios in which the rate of lysogeny is predicted to evolve either toward full lysogeny or full lysis. Finally, we demonstrate conditions under which intermediate rates of lysogeny, as observed in temperate viruses in nature, can be sustained long-term. In general, intermediate lysogeny rates persist when the coupling between susceptible host density and virus density is relaxed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".